"John R. Carroll" wrote in message
t...
Glenn Ashmore wrote:
Criminal acts are another matter, you might deter a burgular
or mugger if he or she thought they would be facing an armed victim.
That I
can buy.

But that has nothing to do with a "well regulated militia' does it?

Nothing, in fact, but other than hunting and sport shooting that's about
all
guns are good for except personal protection and that falls into the same
category.
It's only my own opinion but I just don't think Americans are ready enough
to pull the trigger on recognized authority figures for there to be much
of
a deterrent effect. I can't help but remember the NG troops in all of our
airports right after 9/11. Another terrorist attack right away and they
might even have been allowed to load their weapon.


In any event, our constitution guarantees us all the right to bear arms
and
rather than pussy footing around, anyone wanting to change that ought to
make the effort to try and amend the constitution.

(In the mood for risky behavior tonight, Huntress unwarily says...) Well, it
asserts that the federal government is not to infringe that right. As
history tells us, and as the Supreme Court reaffirmed in the Barron v.
Baltimore case in the 1830s, the Bill of Rights was never intended to be a
restriction upon the states -- and logic tells us that the states would
never have ratified a group of limitations upon their own power. The Bill of
Rights was the fulfillment of a promise by the Federalists to the
Anti-federalists that they would include some positive guarentees that the
federal government would not usurp certain rights.

As for what the states could do, the ball remains in the air. Originalist
readings of the 14th Amendment would not allow incorporation of the 2nd --
not that they won't find a way to manage it. The Emerson case decided by the
5th Circuit Court of Appeals a few years ago shows one way to do it: Ignore
the question. d8-)

--
Ed Huntress

Ed Huntress wrote:
"John R. Carroll" wrote in message
t...
Glenn Ashmore wrote:
Criminal acts are another matter, you might deter a burgular
or mugger if he or she thought they would be facing an armed
victim. That I
can buy.

But that has nothing to do with a "well regulated militia' does it?

Nothing, in fact, but other than hunting and sport shooting that's
about all guns are good for except personal protection and that
falls into the same category.
It's only my own opinion but I just don't think Americans are ready
enough to pull the trigger on recognized authority figures for there
to be much of a deterrent effect. I can't help but remember the NG
troops in all of our airports right after 9/11. Another terrorist
attack right away and they might even have been allowed to load
their weapon.


In any event, our constitution guarantees us all the right to bear
arms and rather than pussy footing around, anyone wanting to change
that ought to make the effort to try and amend the constitution.

(In the mood for risky behavior tonight, Huntress unwarily says...)
Well, it asserts that the federal government is not to infringe that
right. As history tells us, and as the Supreme Court reaffirmed in
the Barron v. Baltimore case in the 1830s, the Bill of Rights was
never intended to be a restriction upon the states -- and logic tells
us that the states would never have ratified a group of limitations
upon their own power. The Bill of Rights was the fulfillment of a
promise by the Federalists to the Anti-federalists that they would
include some positive guarentees that the federal government would
not usurp certain rights.

As for what the states could do, the ball remains in the air.
Originalist readings of the 14th Amendment would not allow
incorporation of the 2nd -- not that they won't find a way to manage
it. The Emerson case decided by the 5th Circuit Court of Appeals a
few years ago shows one way to do it: Ignore the question. d8-)

You aren't at any risk from me Ed - LOL - and I'd like to clear that up.
I doubt that I know anyone who has had a deeper immersion in gun laws or the
issues surrounding them, and that includes the basis for those laws, and the
many sides of this issue.
My own general feeling is that had the proposed federal authority not been
constituted in such a manner as to protect the states ability to remain
soveriegn, we wouldn't have a USA today. I also believe that our
constitution and the acts of Congress that are our laws are at risk.
Particular risk. We have touched on this before and I am still firmly of the
opinion that what has allowed America to lead the world in so many ways is
the combined success of our legal and financial system and the protections
that our constitution provides them both. Keeping the former vital and
healthy takes serious and studious effort and we need to refocus some of the
resources that are currently being utilized in much less productive ways on
the task. I see nothing now and little on the horizon that any such effort
will be forthcoming absent a catastrophy but sooner or later our nation will
be visited by exactly that. We'll become the fourth failed first world
country in 300 years if we don't wake up.

In other words, by the time gun ownership becomes gun use it'll be to way
late and then some.
It is also worth considering that a well fed and prosperous society rarely
revolts. It is only when the gap between the haves and the have nots becomes
sufficiently wide that there is trouble in River City.


--
John R. Carroll
Machining Solution Software, Inc.
Los Angeles San Francisco
www.machiningsolution.com

On Sat, 28 Jan 2006 21:15:02 -0500, Glenn Ashmore wrote:
Criminal acts are another matter, you might deter a burgular
or mugger if he or she thought they would be facing an armed victim. That
I
can buy.

But that has nothing to do with a "well regulated militia' does it?

Criminal acts aren't limited to individuals, are they Glenn?

Jim,

I think the title of this thread sums it up pretty well. Indictments only
mean something to you when it's a Republican indicted. Does indictment
equal conviction to you? The country's mistake mistake was being so
lenient to your side when they had the perfect opportunity kick your lying
clowns out of office.

George Willer

"jim rozen" wrote in message
...
In article , George Willer says...

Jim,

Here's what's wrong: The ACLU robs productivity from people who have
better
things to do.

So does that war in iraq. That one costs a hell of a lot more for a week
that the aclu budget does for a decade.

Besides, what ever happened to the free market? Walmart can do whatever
they like, but a bunch of lawyers need Mr. Willer's seal of approval
to go into business? What would you do, pass a law against lawyers?

Then how would all those poor republicans find folks to defend them
in all those indictments?

Jim


--
==================================================
please reply to:
JRR(zero) at pkmfgvm4 (dot) vnet (dot) ibm (dot) com
==================================================

On 25 Jan 2006 07:56:12 -0800, jim rozen
wrote:

In article , Gunner says...

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or
prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of
speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to
assemble, and to petition the government for a redress of grievances.

You will notice it also forbids the free expression of religion. Not
to mention freedom of speech.

Good, you have the full text there. But you are still uncertain
about what it means. Your comment at the end indicates some
confusion and is flatly incorrect. Lay it out in its entirety,
the authors were quite stingy with words even if dead-on gramatically
correct:

"Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion.
Congress shall make no law prohibiting the free exercise of religion.
Congress shall make no law abridging the freedom of speech.
Congress shall make no law abridging the freedom of the press.
Congress shall make no law abridging the right of the people..."

and so on.

The first part is the 'establishment' clause. That guarantees
freedom *from* religion, the govenment cannot create state
religions. The second is the free exercise clause which gives
freedom *of* religion - they cannot ban or restrict it with laws.

Odd that an intelligent man like you can put 2+2 and get 3.

The establishment clause guarentees you freedom from GOVERNMENT
mandated religion. Period. It mentions nothing about non government
religion. Not in the work place, nor in your neighborhood, nada. If
you moved into an apartment house with born againers all around
you...they can preach all night long unless there is a previous local
noise ordinance or rule in the lease.

Notice this stuff only applies TO THE GOVENMENT. None of this
applies to anyone else - corporations, private individuals, etc.

Good boy. Im glad to see you are learning.

Im still waiting for your cites on the claim you made about :freedom
From religion:

See comments above. For further details take out a book on constituional
law. But those are the standard views of the document. You can put
whatever spin you want on the document, but if you tried to bluster your
way through a first year law class on it you would be laughed out of
the room.

Jim

Blink blink..you missed the boat again. Bummer. Well keep up the good
fight Jim.

Gunner

"Deep in her heart, every moslem woman yearns to show us her tits"
John Griffin

On Sat, 28 Jan 2006 12:14:48 -0500, "Ed Huntress"
wrote:


Have a good night's rest. Maybe reality will visit you before you wake, and
you'll get it.

--
Ed Huntress

You want him to discribe it to you? Its best you seek it out on your
own Ed..though I understand it may be a long journey for you.

Gunner

"Deep in her heart, every moslem woman yearns to show us her tits"
John Griffin

On Sat, 28 Jan 2006 21:15:02 -0500, "Glenn Ashmore"
wrote:

Criminal acts are another matter, you might deter a burgular
or mugger if he or she thought they would be facing an armed victim. That
I
can buy.

But that has nothing to do with a "well regulated militia' does it?


Please advise what you Think a "well regulated militia" is Glenn.

Gunner, sharpening up the knives....
"Deep in her heart, every moslem woman yearns to show us her tits"
John Griffin

On 25 Jan 2006 08:52:44 -0800, "Gus" wrote:


jim rozen wrote:
In article , Gunner says...

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or
prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of
speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to
assemble, and to petition the government for a redress of grievances.

You will notice it also forbids the free expression of religion. Not
to mention freedom of speech.

Good, you have the full text there. But you are still uncertain
about what it means. Your comment at the end indicates some
confusion and is flatly incorrect. Lay it out in its entirety,
the authors were quite stingy with words even if dead-on gramatically
correct:

"Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion.
Congress shall make no law prohibiting the free exercise of religion.
Congress shall make no law abridging the freedom of speech.
Congress shall make no law abridging the freedom of the press.
Congress shall make no law abridging the right of the people..."

and so on.

The first part is the 'establishment' clause. That guarantees
freedom *from* religion, the govenment cannot create state
religions. The second is the free exercise clause which gives
freedom *of* religion - they cannot ban or restrict it with laws.

Notice this stuff only applies TO THE GOVENMENT. None of this
applies to anyone else - corporations, private individuals, etc.

Im still waiting for your cites on the claim you made about :freedom
From religion:

See comments above. For further details take out a book on constituional
law. But those are the standard views of the document. You can put
whatever spin you want on the document, but if you tried to bluster your
way through a first year law class on it you would be laughed out of
the room.

Jim


That was a good explanation but I'm still confused about the freedom
From religion part. Doesn't the First Amendment say that we're free
From the establishment of a (national) religion and nothing else?

If the establishment clause is so obvious, why is it that our friends
in the ACLU have convinced people that the establishment clause also
means that a grade school can't have a Christmas tree or that a town
can't have the 10 Commandments on public property. They always cite
this establishment thing but that's a huge stretch.

It almost seems like they have used the establishment clause to beat
down the free exercise clause.
GW

BIG gold star.

Gunner

"Deep in her heart, every moslem woman yearns to show us her tits"
John Griffin

On Wed, 25 Jan 2006 12:51:32 -0800, Koz
wrote:

When a religious symbol or ceremony is allowed (placed by the
authorities or with specific permission of the authorities) in a
publicly owned location, it is implied that the government is condoning
the particular religion involved.


Not true! It can very well simply mean that it condones people from
freely expressing their beliefs.

I dont agree that governments should be spending tax payers money on
christmas trees etc etc..but if the employees decide to on their own
dime..put up a manger..or minora or pentagram..so be it.

Gunner

"Deep in her heart, every moslem woman yearns to show us her tits"
John Griffin

On Wed, 25 Jan 2006 15:53:46 -0500, "tonyp"
wrote:


"Gus" wrote

If the establishment clause is so obvious, why is it that our friends
in the ACLU have convinced people that the establishment clause also
means that a grade school can't have a Christmas tree


_Public_ schools, funded by taxes, operated by government.
Private schools can have any kind of tree they want, and make their students
pray to it. And if government tries to stop _them_, the ACLU will take
_their_ side.

Just like the religion of Secular Humanism, right?

Please provide cites of any public school forcing the students to pray
to a tree.

I didn know we were having a Druid revival. Interesting

Gunner




"Deep in her heart, every moslem woman yearns to show us her tits"
John Griffin

On 26 Jan 2006 09:26:10 -0800, jim rozen
wrote:

In article .com, Gus says...

If the establishment clause is so obvious, why is it that our friends
in the ACLU have convinced people that the establishment clause also
means that a grade school can't have a Christmas tree or that a town
can't have the 10 Commandments on public property.

Because there's always some yahoo judge who wants to have the
ten comandments tombstone in his courthouse. This is a give
and take thing. Every issue can be litigated and no doubt will
be.


Ever see the outside of the Supreme Court building?


This is why we have courts. They get to decide. That's what they
do.

The ACLU didn't make the law, they didn't make the decision. They
just said, let's see what the courts have to say about this. What's
wrong with that approach?

Jim

"Deep in her heart, every moslem woman yearns to show us her tits"
John Griffin

On Wed, 25 Jan 2006 17:44:26 -0500, "tonyp"
wrote:


"Gunner" wrote

So you were ok with Clinton using the IRS against his political
enemies..but not the Republicans?


I will tell you after you tell me this:
are _you_ OK with the Republicans doing it?

Gods no. Got cites they have been?



Speaking of enemies of the state...
How are the Waco survivors doing
these days?


Speaking of non-sequitors, did Clinton ship any of them to Gitmo?

-- TP

No..he murdered them in place. No 3 hots with a cot, fresh prayer rug
and delousing daily etc etc.

Gunner

"Deep in her heart, every moslem woman yearns to show us her tits"
John Griffin

On 26 Jan 2006 20:47:55 -0800, jim rozen
wrote:

In article , Gunner says...

Now just *how* are you gonna blame that one on clinton?

Why would I?

That's your favorite plaintive cry. The big bad bill did it.

So..hows Mary Jo Kopechne these days?

About the same as ollie north, and that poindexter guy.

Jim

Ollie and Poindexter were drowned by Teddy Kennedy?

Cites?

Gunner

"Deep in her heart, every moslem woman yearns to show us her tits"
John Griffin

"Gunner" wrote in message
...
On Sat, 28 Jan 2006 12:14:48 -0500, "Ed Huntress"
wrote:


Have a good night's rest. Maybe reality will visit you before you wake,
and
you'll get it.

--
Ed Huntress

You want him to discribe it to you? Its best you seek it out on your
own Ed..though I understand it may be a long journey for you.

He already tried to describe it. Pretty flabby, repeating the same
self-delusion over and over again.

He seems to think that guns have a magic of their own, even without a threat
they'll be used.

--
Ed Huntress

"Gunner" wrote in message
...
On Wed, 25 Jan 2006 15:53:46 -0500, "tonyp"
wrote:


"Gus" wrote

If the establishment clause is so obvious, why is it that our friends
in the ACLU have convinced people that the establishment clause also
means that a grade school can't have a Christmas tree


_Public_ schools, funded by taxes, operated by government.
Private schools can have any kind of tree they want, and make their
students
pray to it. And if government tries to stop _them_, the ACLU will take
_their_ side.

Just like the religion of Secular Humanism, right?

Wait a minute...if Secular Humanism is a religion, why all this talk from
you about freedom "from" religion? I mean, if those are Secular Humanists,
they aren't trying to be free *from* religion. They just want to be free to
practice their *own* religion, right?

--
Ed Huntress

"Gunner" wrote in message
...
On Wed, 25 Jan 2006 18:54:53 -0500, "Ed Huntress"
wrote:

"Gunner" wrote in message
.. .
On Tue, 24 Jan 2006 07:13:20 -0500, "Ed Huntress"
wrote:

"Gunner" wrote in message
.. .

And what additional unilateral powers do you figure pyotr will want
Dick
and
Dubya to have next week, if (god forbid) there should be another
major
attack tomorrow?

-- TP

The difference is...the Republicans spy on foreign enemies.

snip

But that's anyone who didn't vote Republican. d8-)

Cites?

Haha! Gunner, the whole point is that they WON'T TELL YOU WHAT THEY'RE
DOING. IT'S NONE OF YOUR BUSINESS. YOU AREN'T PART OF THE NEOCON
ADMINISTRATION. They've spent about 40,000 words telling us WHY they can
do
it all in secret. Keeping everyone, particularly the press, in the dark
is
the whole point!

Get it? And then, do you still recognize a smiley at the end of a
sentence?

So then it could be the Grays from Aldebaren IV who are actually in
charge. Its a Secret you know.

I wouldn't know, but if I ever got to sit in on one of Dick Cheney's secret
meetings, I'd want hip boots and a tape recorder.

--
Ed Huntress

In article , Ed Huntress says...

Wait a minute...if Secular Humanism is a religion, why all this talk from
you about freedom "from" religion? I mean, if those are Secular Humanists,
they aren't trying to be free *from* religion. They just want to be free to
practice their *own* religion, right?

Secular Humanism. Yet another one of those idiotic winger ideas
like Intelligent Design that works so well for them when they want
to masquerade as something they just ain't.

Until somebody like you, Ed, shows up and points out just how stupid
it sounds, to the rest of the entire world.

Heck, I'm gonna see just how great that Secular Humanism works as
a religion, come IRS time!

g

Jim


--
==================================================
please reply to:
JRR(zero) at pkmfgvm4 (dot) vnet (dot) ibm (dot) com
==================================================

In article , Gunner says...

Speaking of enemies of the state... How are the Waco survivors doing
these days?

This is what flummoxes me. You hated Janet Reno and though the
waco thing was a stupid tragedy, plain and simple. I felt exactly
the same thing. Not too happy about ruby ridge either.

And yet you would gladly bend over and take it from Karl Rove
and Dick Cheney every day of the week and twice on sunday.

Is your adoration of the republican party really *that*
intense?

Those folks are cut from the exact same cloth as Reno, Gunner.

Jim


--
==================================================
please reply to:
JRR(zero) at pkmfgvm4 (dot) vnet (dot) ibm (dot) com
==================================================

In article , Gunner says...

Ollie and Poindexter were drowned by Teddy Kennedy?

No, they all BROKE THE LAW.

Jim


--
==================================================
please reply to:
JRR(zero) at pkmfgvm4 (dot) vnet (dot) ibm (dot) com
==================================================

Gunner wrote:
On Tue, 24 Jan 2006 11:15:15 -0500, "tonyp"
wrote:


"Gunner" wrote


Speaking of enemies of the state... How are the Waco survivors doing
these days?

You think they would all be alive today if only they'd had a little bigger
arsenal?
ROTFL

--
John R. Carroll
Machining Solution Software, Inc.
Los Angeles San Francisco
www.machiningsolution.com

"jim rozen" wrote in message
...
In article , Ed Huntress says...

Wait a minute...if Secular Humanism is a religion, why all this talk from
you about freedom "from" religion? I mean, if those are Secular
Humanists,
they aren't trying to be free *from* religion. They just want to be free
to
practice their *own* religion, right?

Secular Humanism. Yet another one of those idiotic winger ideas
like Intelligent Design that works so well for them when they want
to masquerade as something they just ain't.

Until somebody like you, Ed, shows up and points out just how stupid
it sounds, to the rest of the entire world.

Heck, I'm gonna see just how great that Secular Humanism works as
a religion, come IRS time!

Tell them you're an ordained minister of the First Church of Secular
Humanism and Discount House of Worship. Maybe you'll get a break on your
property taxes, too.

--
Ed Huntress

In article , Ed Huntress says...

Heck, I'm gonna see just how great that Secular Humanism works as
a religion, come IRS time!

Tell them you're an ordained minister of the First Church of Secular
Humanism and Discount House of Worship. Maybe you'll get a break on your
property taxes, too.

PRAISEEEE JAYSUSSSSS!!!

If He can get me a tax break, I'm all for Him.

I usually attend the church of john moses browning, but our
range has been closed, seems like forever!

Jim


--
==================================================
please reply to:
JRR(zero) at pkmfgvm4 (dot) vnet (dot) ibm (dot) com
==================================================

In article , George Willer says...

Jim,

I think the title of this thread sums it up pretty well. Indictments only
mean something to you when it's a Republican indicted. Does indictment
equal conviction to you? The country's mistake mistake was being so
lenient to your side when they had the perfect opportunity kick your lying
clowns out of office.

George, they *voted* the democrats out of office.

As far as indictments go, no, I hate Ed Meese, so they're innocent
till proven guilty in a court of law. Your buddies ken lay, jeff
skilling, and tom delay are shortly about to be on the Hot Seat
so howsabout we wait to see who goes to jail here.

Don't make the mistake the gunner makes, and think that crooks
in office are OK as long as it says (r) after their names. I
say kick out *all* the crooks and put them where they belong after
abusing the public trust. Gunner likes to paint it black and
white, good guys vs the bad guys.

My view is you can have bad guys on both sides of the fence,
not just one, like he thinks.

Jim


--
==================================================
please reply to:
JRR(zero) at pkmfgvm4 (dot) vnet (dot) ibm (dot) com
==================================================

"jim rozen" wrote in message
...
In article , Ed Huntress says...

Heck, I'm gonna see just how great that Secular Humanism works as
a religion, come IRS time!

Tell them you're an ordained minister of the First Church of Secular
Humanism and Discount House of Worship. Maybe you'll get a break on your
property taxes, too.

PRAISEEEE JAYSUSSSSS!!!

If He can get me a tax break, I'm all for Him.

Discounts on sandals, too. And wait till you see what those coupons get for
you at the fish market! Yah-HOO!

Do you like loaves? Special deal today on loaves.

--
Ed Huntress

On 29 Jan 2006 12:59:17 -0800, jim rozen
wrote:

In article , Gunner says...

Speaking of enemies of the state... How are the Waco survivors doing
these days?

This is what flummoxes me. You hated Janet Reno and though the
waco thing was a stupid tragedy, plain and simple. I felt exactly
the same thing. Not too happy about ruby ridge either.


Yah..your tears and outrage was widely noted. Snicker

And yet you would gladly bend over and take it from Karl Rove
and Dick Cheney every day of the week and twice on sunday.

Please point out any simarlarities.



Is your adoration of the republican party really *that*
intense?

Actually..my approval of the war effort is that intense. I give a ****
one way or another about the GOP, other than that it meets my goals
orders of magnatude better than the Socialist/Marxist fringe nutcase
controled group you belong to.

Those folks are cut from the exact same cloth as Reno, Gunner.

Your opinion is noted, examined like a booger..then flicked away.
Jim

Gunner


"Deep in her heart, every moslem woman yearns to show us her tits"
John Griffin

On 29 Jan 2006 15:07:46 -0800, jim rozen
wrote:

In article , George Willer says...

Jim,

I think the title of this thread sums it up pretty well. Indictments only
mean something to you when it's a Republican indicted. Does indictment
equal conviction to you? The country's mistake mistake was being so
lenient to your side when they had the perfect opportunity kick your lying
clowns out of office.

George, they *voted* the democrats out of office.

As far as indictments go, no, I hate Ed Meese, so they're innocent
till proven guilty in a court of law. Your buddies ken lay, jeff
skilling, and tom delay are shortly about to be on the Hot Seat
so howsabout we wait to see who goes to jail here.

Don't make the mistake the gunner makes, and think that crooks
in office are OK as long as it says (r) after their names. I
say kick out *all* the crooks and put them where they belong after
abusing the public trust. Gunner likes to paint it black and
white, good guys vs the bad guys.

While there are bad guys on the Right..you and your ilk make the claim
they all are..while giving a pass to the guys on your side. Many of
whom are crooks indeed..while the remainder..such as yourself are
simply partisan hacks and useful idiots

My view is you can have bad guys on both sides of the fence,
not just one, like he thinks.

Jim

Of course..to bad you only speak about the ones on the Right..while
giving a tacit approval and stone silence about those you support.

Gunner


"Deep in her heart, every moslem woman yearns to show us her tits"
John Griffin

On 29 Jan 2006 13:00:03 -0800, jim rozen
wrote:

In article , Gunner says...

Ollie and Poindexter were drowned by Teddy Kennedy?

No, they all BROKE THE LAW.

Jim


Mary Joe Kopechne broke the law???? Which one, besides not being able
to hold her breath for 40 yrs?

Gunner

"Deep in her heart, every moslem woman yearns to show us her tits"
John Griffin

In article , Gunner says...

... I give a ****
one way or another about the GOP,

Could we have a show of hands here, how many other folks
think this is the biggest crock of hog drippings that
ever graced their computer screen.....

Jim


--
==================================================
please reply to:
JRR(zero) at pkmfgvm4 (dot) vnet (dot) ibm (dot) com
==================================================

In article , Gunner says...

As far as indictments go, no, I hate Ed Meese, so they're innocent
till proven guilty in a court of law. ...

While there are bad guys on the Right..you and your ilk make the claim
they all are.....

There's a fundamental disagreement between what you said immediately
above, and what I said above that.

"Innocent until proven guilty." That's what I said, and I mean it.

Your problem is similar to what their problem is: you can't imagine
they'll ever get caught, prosecuted, convicted, and have to serve time.

And, roll over on their co-conspirators in the meanwhile....

g

Jim


--
==================================================
please reply to:
JRR(zero) at pkmfgvm4 (dot) vnet (dot) ibm (dot) com
==================================================

On 29 Jan 2006 13:00:03 -0800, jim rozen wrote:
In article , Gunner says...

Ollie and Poindexter were drowned by Teddy Kennedy?

No, they all BROKE THE LAW.

Mary Jo Kopeckne broke the law?

On 30 Jan 2006 07:33:34 -0800, jim rozen
wrote:

In article , Gunner says...

... I give a ****
one way or another about the GOP,

Could we have a show of hands here, how many other folks
think this is the biggest crock of hog drippings that
ever graced their computer screen.....

Jim

Jimmy...Im a republitarian. Im a Republican with strong libertarian
leanings. The GOP as it stands right now..is hardly paddling in the
same creek as me. But at least..its paddling in water, rather than
the DNC which is trying to row its boat across the Bonniville Salt
Flats.

I fully approve of the war in Iraq, and the war on terrorism. While
not happy about some of its aspects..its going along well enough.

Btw..you may wish to review this post about the president

"THE PRESIDENT mulls a strike against Iraq, which he calls an "outlaw
nation" in league with an "unholy axis of terrorists, drug traffickers
and organized international criminals." The talk among world leaders,
however, focuses on diplomacy. France, Russia, China, and most Arab
nations oppose military action. The Saudis balk at giving us
overflight rights. U.N. secretary general Kofi Annan prepares a
last-ditch attempt to convince Saddam Hussein to abide by the U.N.
resolutions he agreed to at the end of the Gulf War.

Administration rhetoric could hardly be stronger. The president asks
the nation to consider this question: What if Saddam Hussein

"fails to comply, and we fail to act, or we take some ambiguous third
route which gives him yet more opportunities to develop his program of
weapons of mass destruction and continue to press for the release of
the sanctions and continue to ignore the solemn commitments that he
made? Well, he will conclude that the international community has lost
its will. He will then conclude that he can go right on and do more to
rebuild an arsenal of devastating destruction."

The president's warnings are firm. "If we fail to respond today,
Saddam and all those who would follow in his footsteps will be
emboldened tomorrow." The stakes, he says, could not be higher. "Some
day, some way, I guarantee you, he'll use the arsenal."

These are the words not of President George W. Bush in September 2002
but of President Bill Clinton on February 18, 1998. Clinton was
speaking at the Pentagon, after the Joint Chiefs and other top
national security advisers had briefed him on U.S. military readiness.
The televised speech followed a month-long build-up of U.S. troops and
equipment in the Persian Gulf. And it won applause from leading
Democrats on Capitol Hill. "

Now the Exit Strategy for Bosnia is what again????

Gunner

"Deep in her heart, every moslem woman yearns to show us her tits"
John Griffin

On 30 Jan 2006 07:36:53 -0800, jim rozen
wrote:

In article , Gunner says...

As far as indictments go, no, I hate Ed Meese, so they're innocent
till proven guilty in a court of law. ...

While there are bad guys on the Right..you and your ilk make the claim
they all are.....

There's a fundamental disagreement between what you said immediately
above, and what I said above that.

"Innocent until proven guilty." That's what I said, and I mean it.

Wish me to google your comments on the subject? VBG

Your problem is similar to what their problem is: you can't imagine
they'll ever get caught, prosecuted, convicted, and have to serve time.

If they are indeed guilty, and its not a Leftwing witch hunt..let em
fry.

And, roll over on their co-conspirators in the meanwhile....

If thats what it takes..so be it.
g

Jim

Now care to discuss corrupton on the Left? Shall I google your
comments about those in the previous administration? And your
defense of them..either overtly or tacitly though your silence?

VBG

Gunner

"Deep in her heart, every moslem woman yearns to show us her tits"
John Griffin

"jim rozen" wrote in message
...
In article , Gunner says...

... I give a ****
one way or another about the GOP,

Could we have a show of hands here, how many other folks
think this is the biggest crock of hog drippings that
ever graced their computer screen.....

Jim

One would think he could have saved himself a *lot* of wear and tear on his
fingertips over the years...

--
Ed Huntress

"Gunner" wrote in message
...
On 30 Jan 2006 07:33:34 -0800, jim rozen
wrote:

In article , Gunner says...

... I give a ****
one way or another about the GOP,

Could we have a show of hands here, how many other folks
think this is the biggest crock of hog drippings that
ever graced their computer screen.....

Jim

Jimmy...Im a republitarian. Im a Republican with strong libertarian
leanings. The GOP as it stands right now..is hardly paddling in the
same creek as me. But at least..its paddling in water, rather than
the DNC which is trying to row its boat across the Bonniville Salt
Flats.

You know, as far as that goes, and to the extent you mean what you say, you
and I are Republicans for exactly the same reason...and we're both holding
our noses while doing it.

Imagine that. Very weird. g

--
Ed Huntress

Ed Huntress wrote:

Jimmy...Im a republitarian. Im a Republican with strong libertarian
leanings. The GOP as it stands right now..is hardly paddling in the
same creek as me. But at least..its paddling in water, rather than
the DNC which is trying to row its boat across the Bonniville Salt
Flats.


You know, as far as that goes, and to the extent you mean what you say, you
and I are Republicans for exactly the same reason...and we're both holding
our noses while doing it.

Imagine that. Very weird. g

Ed Huntress


I'm not quite holding my nose yet but the smell is getting pretty
bad. :-)
...lew...

In article , jim rozen says...

... Shall I google your
comments about those in the previous administration?

You go and googlke all you you like. A case of mt. dew goes to
you when you find where I said, they're crooks but that's ok
because they're democrats.

Mmmm. Mt Dew. Tasty.... caffinated... sugar.... plus
that fluorescene-like green dye. All you have to do to
get your fix, gunner, is come up with where jim says the
democrat crooks should have a get-out-of-jail-free card....

Actually it may really *be* fluorescene.

Jim


--
==================================================
please reply to:
JRR(zero) at pkmfgvm4 (dot) vnet (dot) ibm (dot) com
==================================================

On Mon, 30 Jan 2006 14:46:54 -0500, "Ed Huntress"
wrote:

"Gunner" wrote in message
.. .
On 30 Jan 2006 07:33:34 -0800, jim rozen
wrote:

In article , Gunner says...

... I give a ****
one way or another about the GOP,

Could we have a show of hands here, how many other folks
think this is the biggest crock of hog drippings that
ever graced their computer screen.....

Jim

Jimmy...Im a republitarian. Im a Republican with strong libertarian
leanings. The GOP as it stands right now..is hardly paddling in the
same creek as me. But at least..its paddling in water, rather than
the DNC which is trying to row its boat across the Bonniville Salt
Flats.

You know, as far as that goes, and to the extent you mean what you say, you
and I are Republicans for exactly the same reason...and we're both holding
our noses while doing it.

Imagine that. Very weird. g


Indeed.

Gunner

"Deep in her heart, every moslem woman yearns to show us her tits"
John Griffin

On 30 Jan 2006 12:34:53 -0800, jim rozen
wrote:

In article , Gunner says...

Your problem is similar to what their problem is: you can't imagine
they'll ever get caught, prosecuted, convicted, and have to serve time.

If they are indeed guilty, and its not a Leftwing witch hunt..let em
fry.

Hmm. For the moment we'll figure that 'prosecute' and witch hunt
are two different things. Remember the present administration
does not consider that to be true. Any sign of disloyalty is met
with instant slime and slander.

Wrong. Provably wrong.

One should note that with the Left..its the Charge that means all. Not
if the person is guilty or innocent..thats simply dross. If You
leftists can get face time accusing a Conservative of something..thats
all that matters.

... Shall I google your
comments about those in the previous administration?

You go and googlke all you you like. A case of mt. dew goes to
you when you find where I said, they're crooks but that's ok
because they're democrats.

Jim

Im sure you would. You have never overtly stated that. However..you
are strangely silent when Democrat corruption and malfeasence arises.

Yet you spill your guts when Conservative corrution is mentioned. Not
to mention you tend to convict on rumor or on The Charge. No matter if
they are later found to be innocent.


Gunner

"Deep in her heart, every moslem woman yearns to show us her tits"
John Griffin

On 30 Jan 2006 19:20:03 -0800, jim rozen
wrote:

In article , jim rozen says...

... Shall I google your
comments about those in the previous administration?

You go and googlke all you you like. A case of mt. dew goes to
you when you find where I said, they're crooks but that's ok
because they're democrats.

Mmmm. Mt Dew. Tasty.... caffinated... sugar.... plus
that fluorescene-like green dye. All you have to do to
get your fix, gunner, is come up with where jim says the
democrat crooks should have a get-out-of-jail-free card....

Actually it may really *be* fluorescene.

Jim

See previous post. Btw..I only drink Diet Mt. Dew. No sugar, twice the
caffiene. Its how I keep my boyish figure

Gunner, who weighs 5 lbs more than he did when he graduated from High
School in 1971

"Deep in her heart, every moslem woman yearns to show us her tits"
John Griffin

On Mon, 30 Jan 2006 14:31:48 -0500, "Ed Huntress"
wrote:

"jim rozen" wrote in message
...
In article , Gunner says...

... I give a ****
one way or another about the GOP,

Could we have a show of hands here, how many other folks
think this is the biggest crock of hog drippings that
ever graced their computer screen.....

Jim

One would think he could have saved himself a *lot* of wear and tear on his
fingertips over the years...


Responding to Leftwing extremist fringe kook spew is fun. And someone
has to do it..else the dreck they push might be considered truth..and
we all know that Truth and the Left are mutually exclusive.

Gunner

"Deep in her heart, every moslem woman yearns to show us her tits"
John Griffin